Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Price, 04-7975 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7975 Visitors: 22
Filed: Mar. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7975 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANNY PRICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-00-780) Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 15, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Price, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. M
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-7975



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DANNY PRICE,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-00-780)


Submitted:   March 10, 2005                 Decided:   March 15, 2005


Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Danny Price, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Danny Price seeks to appeal the district court’s order

and judgment denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).            A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”                    28 U.S.C.

§   2253(c)(2)   (2000).    A    prisoner   satisfies      this   standard    by

demonstrating    that   reasonable     jurists     would     find    that    his

constitutional    claims   are   debatable   and   that     any     dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
537 U.S. 322
, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 
529 U.S. 473
, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
252 F.3d 676
, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude Price has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                      DISMISSED




                                   - 2 -

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer